RIGHTS OF PATENTEE, PATENT INFRINGEMENT, AND DEFENCES

This article is written by Sachin Siddharth of 2^nd Semester of Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies, Delhi

Abstract:

The concept of intellectual property rights has become increasingly significant in the modern era, particularly in the realm of patent law. This abstract explores the fundamental aspects of patent rights, patent infringement, and available defences in patent infringement cases.

Firstly, the rights of a patentee are examined. A patentee possesses exclusive rights granted by the government to protect their invention, allowing them to control its use, manufacture, and sale. These rights are typically granted for a limited period, during which the patentee has the authority to prevent others from exploiting their invention without permission. The scope of these rights and their enforcement can vary across jurisdictions.

Next, the issue of patent infringement is explored. Patent infringement occurs when an unauthorized individual or entity utilizes, manufactures, or sells a patented invention without the patentee’s consent. Infringement can be direct, where the unauthorized activity directly matches the claims of the patent, or indirect, where the activity contributes to or induces the infringement. Patent infringement cases require a comparison between the claims of the patent and the alleged infringing product or process.

Finally, the available defences in patent infringement cases are discussed. Various defences exist to counter claims of infringement, including non-infringement, invalidity, and exemptions. Non-infringement defences argue that the accused product or process does not fall within the scope of the patent claims. Invalidity defences challenge the validity of the patent itself, asserting that the invention fails to meet the criteria for patentability, such as novelty or non-obviousness. Exemptions, such as research exemptions or experimental use, provide limited immunity in certain circumstances.

Understanding the rights of patentees, the concept of patent infringement, and the available defences is crucial for both inventors seeking patent protection and individuals or entities accused of patent infringement. This abstract provides a concise overview of these key elements, shedding light on the complex landscape of patent law and its implications for innovation and competition in various industries.

Keywords

Patentee, Patent infringement, Defences, Exclusive rights, Licensing, Transfer, Enforcement, Validity, Literal infringement, Equivalent infringement, Unauthorized use, International harmonization

Introduction:

In the world of intellectual property, patents play a vital role in protecting and incentivizing innovation. A patent grants exclusive rights to an inventor or assignee for their novel invention, providing them with a legal framework to prevent others from making, using, or selling their invention without permission. This set of exclusive rights comes with certain responsibilities and obligations for the patentee.

The rights of a patentee are established under patent laws and vary across jurisdictions. Typically, a patentee has the right to exclude others from making, using, selling, or importing the patented invention within the jurisdiction where the patent is granted. These exclusive rights enable the patent holder to enjoy the fruits of their invention, recoup their investment, and potentially license or sell the patent to interested parties.

However, the rights of a patentee can be infringed upon when someone else, without authorization, engages in any of the prohibited activities related to the patented invention. Patent infringement occurs when a third party, known as the infringer, violates the exclusive rights of the patentee. This infringement can be deliberate or unintentional, but regardless, it can have serious legal consequences.

Patent infringement disputes commonly arise when a patentee believes that their exclusive rights have been violated. In such cases, the patentee can seek legal remedies to enforce their patent rights, such as filing a lawsuit for infringement. To defend against an allegation of patent infringement, the accused party can employ various defenses aimed at challenging the validity or scope of the patent.

Defenses in patent infringement cases are essential tools for accused parties to protect their interests and avoid liability. Some common defenses include challenging the validity of the patent by demonstrating prior art (existing public knowledge or previous inventions), proving that the accused product or process does not infringe the patent claims, or asserting that the patentee has engaged in inequitable conduct during the patent application process.

In recent years, patent infringement cases have become increasingly complex due to advancements in technology and the global nature of innovation. Consequently, legal systems strive to strike a balance between protecting patent rights and promoting fair competition and access to technology. It is crucial for both patentees and accused parties to understand the intricacies of patent law, the rights and responsibilities of the patentee, the definition of patent infringement, and the available defenses.

In this context, this paper will delve deeper into the rights of a patentee, the concept of patent infringement, and the various defenses that can be used in response to patent infringement allegations. By exploring these topics, we aim to provide a comprehensive understanding of the legal landscape surrounding patents and the fundamental principles that govern the rights and obligations of patentees and accused parties.

I. Rights of a Patentee:

A. Exclusive Rights:

When a patent is granted, the patentee is bestowed with several exclusive rights. These rights include the ability to prevent others from making, using, selling, or importing the patented invention without their authorization. These exclusive rights provide the patentee with a monopoly over their invention for a limited period, usually 20 years from the date of filing the patent application. Some rights give startment to patentee also as there are law that binds intellectual rights.

B. Licensing and Transfer:

A patentee has the right to license or transfer their patent to another party. Licensing allows the patentee to grant permission to others to use their invention under specific terms and conditions. The patentee can receive royalties or other financial benefits in exchange for granting these licenses. Patent transfers, on the other hand, involve the complete assignment of the patent rights to another individual or entity.

C. Enforcement:

A patentee has the right to enforce their patent against any alleged infringer. This typically involves filing a lawsuit in a court of law, seeking remedies for the infringement. Remedies may include injunctive relief (to stop the infringing activities), damages (to compensate for losses suffered), and, in some cases, even punitive damages.

II. Patent Infringement:

Patent infringement occurs when a person or entity performs any of the exclusive rights granted to a patentee without their permission. There are three elements that need to be established to prove patent infringement:

A. Patent Validity:

The patent in question must be valid, meaning it meets all the legal requirements for patentability. These requirements include novelty, non-obviousness, and utility. If a patent is found to be invalid, it cannot be enforced against alleged infringers.

B. Literal or Equivalent Infringement:

To establish patent infringement, the alleged infringing activity must fall within the scope of the patent claims. Literal infringement occurs when the accused product or process matches all the elements specified in at least one claim of the patent. However, even if literal infringement cannot be proven, a patentee may still argue for infringement under the doctrine of equivalents, which allows for variations that are equivalent to the patented invention.

C. Use Without Authorization:

Finally, it must be shown that the alleged infringer used, made, sold, or imported the patented invention without the authorization of the patentee. Any unauthorized use of the patented invention constitutes infringement.

III. Defences against Patent Infringement Claims:

1. Encouraging Innovation: Patents provide inventors with exclusive rights to their inventions for a limited period, allowing them to recoup their investment in research and development. This protection serves as an incentive for individuals and companies to invest time, resources, and creativity in developing new and useful inventions. By rewarding inventors with exclusive rights, patents encourage innovation and contribute to technological advancements.

2. Protection of Intellectual Property: Patents serve as a fundamental aspect of intellectual property law, granting inventors the ability to protect their creations from unauthorized use or exploitation. Just as copyright protects creative works and trademarks safeguard brands, patents safeguard inventions. This protection encourages inventors to disclose their inventions to the public, sharing knowledge and fostering further research and development.

3. Economic Benefits: The patent system stimulates economic growth and enhances competitiveness. Patents enable inventors and businesses to secure a competitive advantage in the market, attracting investment, promoting entrepreneurship, and facilitating job creation. Patents also foster licensing and technology transfer, allowing inventors to commercialize their inventions and collaborate with other entities, which in turn drives economic activity and fosters innovation in various industries.

4. Balance of Rights: Patent infringement laws strike a balance between protecting the rights of patentees and encouraging competition and access to knowledge. While patentees enjoy exclusive rights, patent laws also provide for fair use exceptions and limitations that allow others to use patented inventions for specific purposes such as research, education, or non-commercial activities. This balance ensures that patent rights are not absolute, allowing for the continued progress of science, technology, and society as a whole.

5. Legal Recourse: Patent infringement laws provide legal recourse to patentees when their rights are violated. These laws offer a mechanism for patentees to enforce their rights, seek damages, and prevent others from making, using, or selling their patented inventions without permission. The availability of legal remedies acts as a deterrent, discouraging potential infringers from unlawfully exploiting patented technologies.

6. International Harmonization: Patents and patent infringement laws are part of an internationally recognized system that promotes harmonization and cooperation among countries. The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and various international agreements, such as the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), provide a framework for protecting and enforcing patents globally. This harmonization ensures that inventors can enjoy similar rights and protections in multiple jurisdictions, fostering cross-border innovation and collaboration.

It is important to note that the patent system is not without its challenges and criticisms. Some argue that patents can stifle innovation, impede competition, and result in excessive litigation. Balancing the interests of patentees with the broader societal benefits requires ongoing discussions and reforms to ensure that the patent system continues to serve its intended purposes effectively.

Case Study

Press metal corporation vs Noshir Sorabji Pochkhanawalla

This is a case related to the Patent section of the IPR, in this case Press metal corporation is the petitioner whereas Noshir Sorabji Pochkhanawalla is the Respondent. This case along with many other issues, deals with the vague explanation of invention on the application of patent.

This case became one of the prominently referred case due to the issue of vague explanation of invention, court in this case has defined the purpose as well as importance of the description of the invention. Now to begin with the facts of the case:

Facts:
In this case the respondent Noshir Sorabji, filed an application for his invention relating to a Muffler or Exhaust Silencer. The Controller accepted the application and wrote down about it in the Gazette of India. The petitioner got to know about the invention through the Gazette of India where it was published by the Controller. Petitioner filed a case under Section 25 (1) (b)[5] of the Patents Act, 1970 in court of law.

Later on, Noshir Sorabji died, and as he stated in his Will, the Executor became 1st Respondent. The final judgement of this case came directly from the Bombay High Court, ruling in favour of the Petitioner. The court held that Respondent cannot receive the Patent, because the description Respondent gave in the application about his invention is vague.
Arguments

1. The first claim of the Petitioner is that the information related to the invention in question, has already been published. According to the Respondent the Muffler (invention in question) making technique has already been published in a journal, before the Respondent filed for the Patent for it. Section 29 (1)[6] of Patent Act 1970, clearly states that if an invention got published before the filing of the application of Patent, then it will get rejected. This section ensures the novelty of the invention that is being registered.
2. The second claim of Petitioner is that, the invention was publicly known to most of the people in related sector of automobiles. Section 25 (1) (d)[7] of the Patent Act 1970, states that if the invention was publicly used before the filing of the Patent, then it is a ground for refusal of the Patent. According to Section 64 (1) (e)[8] of the Patent Act 1970, if the invention does not fall under the criteria of novelty, it will not receive the Patent.
3. The third claim by the Petitioner is that the invention was obvious in nature, and there was no inventive step in it. Section 2 (ja) [9] of the Patent Act 1970, it states that the invention must be non-obvious in nature.
   The purpose of Patent is to initiate creativity among the people, and to ensure creativity among individual such a requirement is necessary. This section also states about the invention to have some economic value in the market.
4. The fourth claim of the Petitioner is that the Patent application of the invention, does not clearly define about the invention. Proper disclosure of the invention being filed for patent, is essential under section 10 (4) of Patent Act 1970[10]. This step is required in acquiring the Patent, just to check if the invention is novel in nature or not. The Controller publishes about the invention being filed on the Gazette of India, where people can see and report in case of IPR infringement.
   Judgement
   The case was decided in the Bombay High Court, the judges held that the Respondent will not be granted the Patent. The judges sustained all the above-mentioned grounds of refusal of Patent, given by the Petitioner.
   Precedent For
   Now, we will get to know about more such cases in which this case was used as a precedent. This case was used in a lot of cases as a precedent, the Respondent in this Noshir Sorabji, was unable to prove the novelty of the invention. The court held in this case that the Controller was in error to allow the invention for Patent. This case not only talks about the prior publication, but also about the vague description of the invention.
   
   Following are the names of such cases:

1. Ravi Raj Gupta. V. Acme Glass Mosaic Industries
   In the above-mentioned case, Plaintiff Ravi Raj Gupta filed a case against the defendant Acme Glass Mosaic Industries. The plaintiff claimed Patent Infringement, whereas the defendant questioned the legality of the Patent. According to the Defendant the idea for which the plaintiff acquired the Patent is a Well- Process, which is being followed by almost everyone in the same industry. Hence not fulfilling the novel or non- obvious essentials for receiving the patent. Press metal corporation vs Noshir Sorabji, this case was used as precedent for not fulfilling the essential of non-obvious in an invention.
2. Alleppy Company LTD. V. Controller of Patent
   In this case the Petitioner filed a case in court of law, against the Controller of Patent. The case arose because, the Controller of Patent allowed the application of the Coir industry field for the Patent of a mat. The mat was a Coir mat having non-skid rubber backing but it was in use since1970. Press metal corporation vs Noshir Sorabji was used in this as a precedent, for prior use of the invention even before filing the application for Patent.
3. Elite Equipment (India) PVT. LTD. V. Sampath Ramesh
   The petitioner in this case is, Elite Equipment whereas the Respondent is Sampath Ramesh. The filed the case against the Respondent because his invention does not fulfil the essentials of Patent, described in the Patent Act 1970. The Respondent invented a pizza screen (used in making pizza), the Petitioner claimed this invention to be in use since 1992. After hearing this the Respondent said it is different and a special pizza screen, to which the Respondent replied it is not clear with the process described by the Petitioner.
   The court held the precedence of Press metal corporation vs Noshir Sorabji in this case and stated, it is the duty of the inventor to properly describe about the invention. The inventions which are not being described clearly will be subject to rejection for the Patent.

End-Notes:

1. AIR 1983 Bom 144, the citation for the above-mentioned case.
2. Section 2(1)(m) “patent” means a patent for any invention granted under this Act, which is Patent Act 1970
3. Article 19 (1) (f)- Right to Property under the Indian Constitution 1950, later on omitted after the 44th amendment in 1978.
4. Article 300A- No person shall be deprived of his property save by the authority of law.
5. Section 25 (1) (b) of the Patent Act 1970- that the invention so far as claimed in any claim of the complete specification has been published before the priority date of the claim:
6. In any specification filed in pursuance of an application for a patent made in India on or after the 1st day of January, 1912; or;
7. In India or elsewhere, in any other document: Provided that the ground specified in sub-clause (ii) shall not be available where such publication does not constitute an anticipation of the invention by virtue of sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) of section 29
8. Section 29 (1)- An invention claimed in a complete specification shall not be deemed to have been anticipated by reason only that the invention was published in a specification filed in pursuance of an application for a patent made in India and dated before the 1st day of January, 1912.
9. Section 25 (1) (d) of the Patent Act 1970- that the invention so far as claimed in any claim of the complete specification was publicly known or publicly used in India before the priority date of that claim. Explanation. -For the purposes of this clause, an invention relating to a process for which a patent is claimed shall be deemed to have been publicly known or publicly used in India before the priority date of the claim if a product made by that process had already been imported into India before that date except where such importation has been for the purpose of reasonable trial or experiment only.
10. Section 64 (1) (e) of the Patent Act 1970- that the invention so far as claimed in any claim of the complete specification is not new, having regard to what was publicly known or publicly used in India before the priority date of the claim or to what was published in India or elsewhere in any of the documents.
11.  Section 2 (ja) of Patent Act 1970- “inventive step” means a feature of an invention that involves technical advance as compared to the existing knowledge or having economic significance or both and that makes the invention not obvious to a person skilled in the art

Conclusion:

In conclusion, the rights of a patentee, patent infringement, and defenses play crucial roles in the field of intellectual property law. Patents are essential legal protections that grant inventors exclusive rights over their inventions for a specified period, enabling them to reap the benefits of their ingenuity. These rights allow patentees to prevent others from making, using, selling, or importing their patented inventions without permission.

Patent infringement occurs when someone uses, makes, sells, or imports a patented invention without the patentee’s authorization. It is a violation of the exclusive rights granted to the patent holder. Patent infringement can have severe consequences, including legal actions, injunctions, damages, and the potential loss of market share or competitive advantage for the patentee.

However, there are certain defenses available to alleged infringers. Common defenses include challenging the validity of the patent, claiming non-infringement, asserting a license or implied permission, or invoking a statutory exemption. These defenses allow alleged infringers to present arguments and evidence to counter the infringement claims brought against them.

Balancing the rights of patentees and the interests of society is a complex task. On one hand, patents incentivize innovation by providing inventors with exclusive rights and a limited monopoly over their inventions. This encourages inventors to invest time, resources, and effort into research and development, fostering technological advancements and economic growth.

On the other hand, it is important to strike a balance that prevents patent rights from stifling competition and hindering the public’s access to important inventions. Ensuring that patent claims are valid, clear, and not overly broad helps prevent the granting of patents that could unduly restrict the activities of others or inhibit further innovation.

In conclusion, the rights of patentees are crucial for promoting innovation and protecting inventors’ interests. However, patent infringement can undermine these rights, and alleged infringers have the opportunity to present valid defences. It is essential to maintain a balanced and fair intellectual property system that rewards inventors while fostering competition, encouraging further innovation, and benefiting society as a whole.